Purpose of Concessions

Islam is a political force, pressing all over the free world for more and more concessions and accommodations from non-Muslims. Each concession takes away freedoms for non-Muslims or gives power, privilege, or advantage to Muslims. In this way, practicing Muslims are invading from within.

It's a new kind of invasion, and to whatever degree they win, it is only because democracies are voluntarily (foolishly, ignorantly) conceding.

Our concessions allow them to keep chipping away at democracy. Their goal is to make every government follow Shari'a law, a repressive system of government. They are accomplishing it incrementally, one small concession at a time.

How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam

Get New Posts Via Email

Please Send Us Stories

When you come across stories about concessions to Islam, please send them to:citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.comSend the link and a 50-200 word summary of the article. We will post them immediately.

We have created this site so all of us would have a single short link we could use whenever we mention concessions to Islam:http://concess.blogspot.com

Take the Pledge

Some people say Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, terrorists, and stealth jihadists who twist and distort the peaceful teachings of the Quran and quote it out of context.

Others say that political, supremacist, and even violent teachings are fundamental to Islam, and that people who say otherwise either haven’t read the Quran or are protecting Islam with religious deception (taqiyya).

The general confusion about the nature of Islam makes us collectively unable to make informed decisions. You can help end this confusion by reading the Quran. Stop believing what other people say and find out for yourself.

Concessions are Sharia

Let's look at an example. Around the world, Muslims react strongly when anyone criticizes Islam. Why? In Sharia law, it is forbidden to criticize either Islam or Mohammad. This is a precept of Sharia law.

Forbidding the criticism of any religion is certainly not a precept of a free society or of Western civilization. This means: To whatever degree Islamic supremacists succeed in silencing our criticisms of Islam, to that degree they have imposed Sharia law on non-Muslims.

Do you know what this means? When the U.S. government stops using words that even implythat Islam might have something to do with terrorism (out of their fear of offending Muslims), what has happened?Islamic supremacists have successfully imposed Sharia law on the U.S. government! This has already happened. Read about it here and here and here.

The primary directive of Islam is not to convert everybody, but to bring everybody on Earth under the rule of Sharia law, whether they like it or not. Ridiculous, right? How could it possibly happen? And yet, it is already happening right under our noses. The concessions on this site are a record of their success thus far.

Get Used To It, Kafirs

Meanwhile, standing by will be legions of Americans saying "What's the big deal? So they want to have a break a little early so they can pray! Let them have it! It doesn't mean America is becoming an Islamic state!" And of course it doesn't. But it does mean that step by step, day by day, little by little, Americans are being asked to make special accommodations for Islam and Muslims, to accept the idea that Muslims are not to conform to American practices, but American practices must give way for them. Little by little, in such small steps that no one notices or cares, a protected class is being formed, and Sharia established as non-negotiable. Where non-Muslims are inconvenienced, as are the non-Muslim Swift employees at Swift, by these concessions to Islamic practice, so be it. Tough. Live with it. Let it be. Muslims are above non-Muslims.

Stealth Jihad

Robert Spencer wrote:

These Muslim initiatives are part of a larger stealth jihad aimed at, in the words of the Muslim Brotherhood, "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Fecundity as a Weapon

"The Moslem population of the world has been exploding, not only in Asia and Africa but also in Europe and the United States. Unlike the Western democracies, China, Japan and India, all of which try to control the birth rate in order to raise living standards, most Muslim countries regard demography as a political weapon. They will gladly export their surplus population to Europe and America, aware that the bigger the diaspora, the greater the political influence it will exert, and the more concessions the Islamic world will be able to extort from the West."
- Serge Trifkovic

Dhimwit of the Month

The Religion of Peace website has a page called the Dhimwit of the month (a dhimmi in Islam is someone of another religion who is tolerated by Islamic law and not executed as long as they remain subjugated and pay a dhimmi tax). Check it out:

Many Forms of Jihad

The bag of non-violent tactics used by the jihadists is deep indeed. Over the last few decades they have perfected a series of effective Jihads against the non-Muslim world while it slumbered in its politically-correct dream-world. There are many Jihads the Islamists use and they all support their ultimate goal — an Islamic world ruled by Shari'a Law. Here they are:

From R. James Woolsey

"Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism. It also comes from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society and, ultimately, toward theocracy. A vital wake-up call of a book."

PAUL MARSHALL, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, delivered a lecture at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2012. Below are some excerpts:

A growing threat to our freedom of speech is the attempt to stifle religious discussion in the name of preventing “defamation of” or “insults to” religion, especially Islam. Resulting restrictions represent, in effect, a revival of blasphemy laws.

Few in the West were concerned with such laws 20 years ago. Even if still on some statute books, they were only of historical interest. That began to change in 1989, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then Iran’s Supreme Leader, declared it the duty of every Muslim to kill British-based writer Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his novel, The Satanic Verses, was blasphemous. Rushdie has survived by living his life in hiding. Others connected with the book were not so fortunate: its Japanese translator was assassinated, its Italian translator was stabbed, its Norwegian publisher was shot, and 35 guests at a hotel hosting its Turkish publisher were burned to death in an arson attack...

Western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based OIC and others for controls on speech. In Austria, for instance, Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolf has been convicted of “denigrating religious beliefs” for her comments about Mohammed during a seminar on radical Islam. Canada’s grossly misnamed “human rights commissions” have hauled writers—including Mark Steyn, who teaches as a distinguished fellow in journalism at Hillsdale College—before tribunals to interrogate them about their writings on Islam. And in Holland and Finland, respectively, politicians Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho have been prosecuted for their comments on Islam in political speeches.

In America, the First Amendment still protects against the criminalization of criticizing Islam. But we face at least two threats still. The first is extra-legal intimidation of a kind already endemic in the Muslim world and increasing in Europe. In 2009, Yale University Press, in consultation with Yale University, removed all illustrations of Mohammed from its book by Jytte Klausen on the Danish cartoon crisis. It also removed Gustave Doré’s 19th-century illustration of Mohammed in hell from Dante’s Inferno. Yale’s formal press statement stressed the earlier refusal by American media outlets to show the cartoons, and noted that their “republication…has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world.”

Another publisher, Random House, rejected at the last minute a historical romance novel about Mohammed’s wife, Jewel of Medina, by American writer Sherry Jones. They did so to protect “the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”

The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.

In 2010, Zachary Chesser, a young convert to Islam, pleaded guilty to threatening the creators of South Park. And on October 3, 2011, approximately 800 newspapers refused to run a “Non Sequitur” cartoon drawn by Wiley Miller that merely contained a bucolic scene with the caption “Where’s Muhammad?”

Many in our media claim to be self-censoring out of sensitivity to religious feelings, but that claim is repeatedly undercut by their willingness to mock and criticize religions other than Islam. As British comedian Ben Elton observed: “The BBC will let vicar gags pass, but they would not let imam gags pass. They might pretend that it’s, you know, something to do with their moral sensibilities, but it isn’t. It’s because they’re scared.”

Get New Posts Via Email

You Can Help Us Here

I urge all of us to use this link whenever we mention concessions to Islam: http://concess.blogspot.com

Setting Precedents

As Robert Spencer put it: "...it's a small accommodation in itself, but it reinforces the precedent that American practices must give way to Muslim ones whenever they clash. Once that precedent is set, it does indeed lead to the Islamization of American society, unless at a certain point non-Muslims are willing to draw the line and say 'Thus far, but no farther. No more accommodation of Muslim demands.' That line will never be drawn, however, as long as Americans continue to fail to see the larger implications and inevitable outcome of these individual incidents."